About your Search

20140226
20140306
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, a rule applied to everybody. now what the law does, what the law would do, this law that the governor is looking at, is make a couple of amendments. first of all, it would not apply just to a person but to a business as well. so a business could assert a religious freedom interest. and basically what it would do is give businesses who refuse to serve someone for religious reasons a defense if they get sued. so that's how the law would change the current religious freedom restoration act. it would apply to businesses. they could go to court if they're sued and say, you know, it was our religious -- this is our religious freedom. it would violate it to serve someone if we believe that would interfere with our practices and beliefs. >> so, pete, there are people who are making the argument against the law saying, well, listen, maybe a muslim business owner will say, i don't want to serve christians or maybe the law could be used in some other way. somebody who had an objection, let's sa
at this bill, didn't hear one example of where someone had been discriminated against because of their religion so she didn't think the bill made sense. your organization released a statement today that read "this legislation would give homosexuals more protection than they did under the current law". given nobody could come up with example of the discrimination, how could they have more protection under a law essentially created to allow people who didn't want to serve gays getting married with things like photography or wedding cakes? >> well, the irony is that arizona does not currently have sexual orientation listed as a protected category in either their employment nondiscrimination laws or public accommodation laws. so the current state of the law in arizona is that anybody can discriminate against gays at any time for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. this bill deals only with when a government action conflicts with a person's sincerely held religious belief. it requires the person asserting that right to be able to prove that this is motivated by the religious belief, that that be
, they feel this way by belarus, united by language, religion, culture. >> thank you so much. we appreciate your time. we'll check back with you a little later on. thanks so much. >>> president obama has been working the phones. he's been talking to vladimir putin, now calling u.s. allies looking for support. we're live from moscow and ukraine coming up next. we're getting ready. your hepatitis c.forget it's slow moving, you tell yourself. i have time. after all there may be no symptoms for years. no wonder you try to push it to the back of your mind and forget it. but here's something you shouldn't forget. hepatitis c is a serious disease. if left untreated, it could lead to liver damage and potentially even liver cancer. if you are one of the millions of people with hepatitis c, you haven't been forgotten. there's never been a better time to rethink your hep c. because people like you may benefit from scientific advances. advances that could help you move on from hep c. now is the time to rethink hep c and talk to your doctor. visit hepchope.com to find out about treatment options. and re
a hotly debated religion bill, business leaders across the state are calling on governor jan brewer to veto the proposed law or risk damaging the state's image and its economic recovery. >> opponents now include the arizona chamber of commerce, the arizona super bowl host committee, apple which has major interests in this state, and both americans airlines and mare rot. now, as local and national businesses are making their voices heard, politicians both in and outside of arizona are pushing to distance themselves from the law. three senators from arizona who voted for the bill are now, actually, get this, are urging the governor to veto it. and state senator steve pierce told chris hayes last night, it was some sort of crazy mixup. >> i believe it was going to be slowed down, wasn't going to come to the floor as soon as it did. i can tell you there's a number of us that we were terxting eac other madly, do we go with it, do we not? so we made a mistake. that's about all i can tell you is we went the wrong way. >> yes. they went the wrong way. and it's too late to reverse that becau
with her if she could come up with one single example of discrimination based on religion in arizona that people of faith have suffered through. she couldn't come up with one other than some hypotheticals that maybe might happen. but she had no actual example of it actually having occurred. and that's interesting because governor brewer specifically pointed that out. and i just want to play some of that exchange we had with nancy barta, one of the authors of sb1062. let's listen. >> senator, do you have any actual example of someone in arizona being forced to do something against their religious beliefs? >> well, in arizona it could be happening all the time, yes. >> but do you have an actual example? >> and we need -- well, surely. people may be being asked to -- >> i mean where it's actually happened. >> well, obviously if people aren't bringing it to court, we don't know about it at this point. but we do know that without this law, people would not be able to defend themselves in court. >> but, again, you can't name actually one example where this has happened, i mean, because peo
religion has the most force. the courts are like the worst place in order to try to get a religious belief codified or encoded into law. because the way in which the supreme court. >> you have to have a secular purpose for the law. when religious right was on the offense, what it did was to use a ballot initiative. everyone goes into the voting booth and votes their religious convictions. you can't second guess that. now that those statutes have become to be struck down by the courts, giving us secular reasons. now that they're playing defense, what the religious right is doing is saying, let's rely on the free exercise clause in order to allow individuals to sort these claims in court. in some ways, arizona was the easiest case, she showed no evidence of religious discrimination against businesses. land of legal, gay rights organization told me today they had received almost 500 complaints over the past four years about lgbt discrimination in arizona. >> which is legal. >> it starts to feel like, you hurt my fist when i hit your face argument. but i think as we move to other states, that
emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation. governor brewer has until saturday to veto the bill. hough, just a few hours ago she tweeted "i assure you, as always, i will do the right thing for the state of arizona." i throw it to you, joe. >> first of all, this was such a needle lesless battle that repus of arizona put on the front pages of papers nationwide. i say needless ba lesless becaut hard to believe that the supreme court would ever allow a law to be upheld that would let somebody that own as restaurant deny service to somebody because of their sexual orientation. for those who say, well, somebody should be able to do that based on their devout religious beliefs, do you then give -- because if you're going to allow somebody to not serve a customer based on their sexual orientation because they see that as a sin, that then allows other restaurant owners in arizona to decide they're not going to serve someone who himself been divorced, like myself, or someone who has committed adultery, or if you want
directly in the face of our religion. one of our core values as christians, we believe, is to love your neighbor as yourself. this bill is seeking to under a guise of religious freedom, it is seeking to give people license to discriminate. that doesn't love your neighbor as yourself. >> in the meantime, more national companies are urging a veto with a deadline a few days away. at&t, delta airlines, intel, text smart and yelp joined the earliest opponents of this bill. >>> a scathing senate report accuses credit suisse of helping wealthy americans of hiding billions from the irs. it was money hidden in panty hose, secret meetings in hotel l lobbies with no paper trail. christine romans is here with answers >>> the top brass at the bank of credit suisse, they acknowledge the behavior and say they have cleaned it up. senators are furious that this went on for so long. the government, the u.s. government, didn't do more to stop it. no question. today, right now, we're getting a very good look at the lifestyles of the rich and greedy. the numbers are shocking. according to the senate investi
whatever you want with your religion. you don't want to marry a man don't marry a man but don't put your hangups, whatever it is you have, you can't put it on other people. even jan brewer there's no way she'll not veto this thing. >> is certainly looks like she'll veto it. >> i want to see the guys that wrote this bill. where are they from? where have they been hiding? >> hold on. i would not paint an entire party with the same brush at all because it's totally, they're totally separate. >> where are you going with this now? >> you know where i'm going with it. >> with the only people happy about the mixed race commercial were republicans? >> no. >> if you look at the party plank the same points you pointed out to eric cantor, wait a second, why don't you recognize same-sex marriage. >> the far right, they're trying to just like obama cobbled together a coalition of different interests the far right is afraid to go against the deeply religious whatever. >> and democrats were in the same position until the president came out and said that he had changed his mind about it. this is a recen
relationship with ukraine, good diplomatic and economic religions. >> john kerry, i assume he was, if he's in washington, he was at the white house for this so-called meeting. we saw general martin dempsey, chuck hagel, james clapper, where's kerry? >> he is, we don't know where he is right now, but clearly, he has a very close relationship with sergey la the russian foreign minister. you've seen some talk about the russians possibly calling their ambassador back to moscow, but that's not really where the business between the u.s. and russia is done. it's done between capitals, the white house, between the kremlin and secretary kerry and lavrov. secretary kerry has had some positive effects with his relationship with lavrov. they put together those peace talks in geneva. we have on the syrian crisis, we haven't seen a lot of progress, but they are determined to work together and this is i think you should look for kerry to get much more involved. >> we know the vice president, joe biden, has been deeply involved in this crisis as well. stand by. i want to go to moscow right now. fred is
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)